NVIDIA announced its new entry-level GeForce GT 730 graphics processor. Based on the same 28 nm "GK107" silicon as the GeForce GT 740, which launched last month, the GT 730 is essentially a GT 740 with lower clock speeds, and slower DDR3 memory. Core clock speeds start at 908 MHz, and memory at 1.80 GHz (DDR). 1 GB is the standard memory amount. Most cards based on this chip will be based on half-height (low-profile) PCBs, some single-slot with active (fan) cooling, others double-slot, with passive (fan-less) cooling. In the era of AMD GCN-based APUs, and Intel Iris Pro graphics, NVIDIA could be targeting a dwindling two-figure price.

I find this card rather pointless, as pointed out even Intel HD 5000 is just barely below the performance of the GT 730 and the A10 along with A8 do a great job beating both the 730 and 740 along with the Iris pro doing that as well. They serve a purpose only in offering some performance to old machine or business machines that need a low profile card, but I feel this market is dissappearing whether it be an R7 240 of a GT 730-740.

Would you actually buy it for $50? If so remember $100 buys you a whole APU that kicks its ass overall.

I see the market for this to idiots who only talk about their Hz and how many gigathings of their memories they have on their whole computer.

Click to expand...

My gateway needs a GPU to boot, but it runs headless so it doesn't need any power whatsoever. It doesn't have an iGPU, so a dedicated card is the only option, so for that purpose I would be apt to buy a low-power PoS GPU for it.

I have another rig in the attic that I'm about to get rid of, the person who will be using it won't be playing games so something low power without any umfph would be in order because it too doesn't have an iGPU.

I see the market for people just needing a GPU for a tower that already exists that doesn't plan on doing any gaming whatsoever. An APU assumes you already have it, but if all I need is a GPU, why invest >100 USD in the platform when all you really need is a cheap GPU? To think someone expects games to run well on this is sadly mistaken and it's like someone getting a Celeron and wondering why it sucks for games. You get what you pay for.

Seems like a pretty niche market if you ask me. This looks to be on par with the integrated graphics that most CPUs come with today. The ones that don't are the high-end; and if you're getting one of those, you're getting a high-end GPU to go with it. This leaves us with very old systems without an iGPU (on CPU or mobo) that will be used for non-demanding tasks. And maybe as a backup for browsing computers if something happens to the iGPU. Am I missing any other scenarios?

My gateway needs a GPU to boot, but it runs headless so it doesn't need any power whatsoever. It doesn't have an iGPU, so a dedicated card is the only option, so for that purpose I would be apt to buy a low-power PoS GPU for it.

I have another rig in the attic that I'm about to get rid of, the person who will be using it won't be playing games so something low power without any umfph would be in order because it too doesn't have an iGPU.

I see the market for people just needing a GPU for a tower that already exists that doesn't plan on doing any gaming whatsoever. An APU assumes you already have it, but if all I need is a GPU, why invest >100 USD in the platform when all you really need is a cheap GPU? To think someone expects games to run well on this is sadly mistaken and it's like someone getting a Celeron and wondering why it sucks for games. You get what you pay for.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that there is a use for these GPUs. For my purposes, that 5450 would be enough, but I have a 2600 XT in it right now and until I have a reason to buy something else from the internet that I actually need, I'm not inclined to replace it until I'm already having to order stuff I need. I was using my gateway as an example...

I see the market for this to idiots who only talk about their Hz and how many gigathings of their memories they have on their whole computer.

Click to expand...

TechPowerUp Forum Guidelines said:

Be polite, if you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything at all. This includes trolling, continuous use of bad language (ie. cussing), flaming and insulting others.

Click to expand...

Do you have a problem or do you just have trouble controlling your attitude and your actions? If you can't have a civilized conversation with people without insulting them or using words like "idiot", you shouldn't even bother posting until you grow up a bit and can post with a bit more restraint, maturity, and respect.

I don't believe it, they actually made a card that is slower than the legendary GT 640
Gosh, if NVIDIA wanted to troll us, they could at least make it entertaining with some specs like a 256 bit memory bus with 4gb DDR2

I don't believe it, they actually made a card that is slower than the legendary GT 640
Gosh, if NVIDIA wanted to troll us, they could at least make it entertaining with some specs like a 256 bit memory bus with 4gb DDR2

Click to expand...

256 bit bus and 4gb ddr2? Now that's on a whole different level of dumb.

I don't believe it, they actually made a card that is slower than the legendary GT 640
Gosh, if NVIDIA wanted to troll us, they could at least make it entertaining with some specs like a 256 bit memory bus with 4gb DDR2

Click to expand...

Where is this? I only see DDR3 variants and I suspect that they're mostly just DDR3 with a 128-bit bus.

256 bit bus and 4gb ddr2? Now that's on a whole different level of dumb.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is, 4Gb of DDR2 RAM on a 256 bit bus would actually yield more bandwidth than this current trainwreck design.

Sigh, people who design these low end cards really have no concept of "adequate memory bandwidth"

My GT 650m on my laptop (i.e. the GT640) with GDDR3 is slower than a sloth doing calculus. Worst part is that stuff it's actually supposed to run (i.e. 60+FPS) stutter like anything as the data is streaming from the memory bank.
Damn, at least the terrible GT 440 in the past was actually a reasonably balanced design.

Funny thing is, 4Gb of DDR2 RAM on a 256 bit bus would actually yield more bandwidth than this current trainwreck design.

Sigh, people who design these low end cards really have no concept of "adequate memory bandwidth"

My GT 650m on my laptop (i.e. the GT640) with GDDR3 is slower than a sloth doing calculus. Worst part is that stuff it's actually supposed to run (i.e. 60+FPS) stutter like anything as the data is streaming from the memory bank.
Damn, at least the terrible GT 440 in the past was actually a reasonably balanced design.

Do you have a problem or do you just have trouble controlling your attitude and your actions? If you can't have a civilized conversation with people without insulting them or using words like "idiot", you shouldn't even bother posting until you grow up a bit and can post with a bit more restraint, maturity, and respect.

Click to expand...

Its hard to show sarcasm on the internet, unless they give us comic fonts......

But yes I do believe there will be people who will buy it only as its says Nvidia 730 and has more memory. If after a reasonable discussion about price/performance/features they still do it I believe they are idiots, I don't hate them for it, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Not sure about this, but aren't those 730 GPUs actually semi-rebuts of bad yields from the top GPUs, with a lot of cores disabled and stuff?
I mean they just pack this, with the cheapest VRAM there is and call it a new card. Not that AMD is not doing the same thing, but still...